This is what the environmentalist movement is all about anyway - self delusion, like one person could really make a difference...
and when you have 6 billion people thinking that way, you get the situation we have today. Have you ever heard of the "tragedy of the commons"?
Even so, a person is not responsible for how other people think. It's almost like a classic prisoner's dilemma, where some people betray (litter), because they know the rest (environmentalists) will stay silent (recycle). Lucky for us environmentalism also works even if there are free riders in the system.
These solar panels kind of remind me of how catholic church used to sell indulgences, so a man could pay for his sins (in money).
Nice religious analogy, but not really accurate. Every technology needs early adopters, who will pay a lot of money for something that probably won't perform as well as advanced versions (for example later versions of Geforce 8XXX series GPU will probably use less power + better performance) they will pay the premium simply to have the newest tech.
I think it was fairly accurate, I think most people recycle and do environmental acts at their expense, only because because it makes them feel better and there's always a price to pay for that feeling, be it time, money, or some other effort.
My premise is, that people who are substituting normal batterys or gasoline aggregates with solar panels, do so not because they want to pay extra for more environmental technology, even if it is inferior to more conventional technology. It seems like your premise is, that people are buying solar panels instead of batterys and gasoline aggregates, because they just want the latest tech (even if it is inferior).
Your GF8x00 example compares present day technology to future tech, my analogy was based on the assumption that present day solar panels are a substitute for present day batterys and aggregates. It cannot be compared to the adopting of new technology like GF8x00, because in that particular case, the new tech is always superior, where as even new solar panel technology is inferior to the products it is trying to substitute.
These days you are buying your way out of the collective guilt of polluting by recycling, buying hybrid cars or these Nintendo DS systems with solar panels.
If I did buy a hybrid car it wouldn't be out of guilt; hybrids tend to use less fuel than ordinary saloons, so as long as the purchase price doesn't wipe out the fuel savings it would be a purely financial decision. Of course, some very good diesel engines can be more economical than hybrids, so the numbers would really have to stack up. Also, in London, you are exempted from certain taxes if you buy a hybrid (ie congestion charge), so that is a factor as well.
Your reasoning would make it an economical choice instead of ecological. It only means you don't share the collective guilt. Tax exemptions can only make the car more economical for an individual at the expense of the community. If everyone bought a hybrid car, where would the government get taxes to support public sector? Not everyone is going to buy a hybrid and get a tax exemption, so it kind of means that those who are getting exempted are evading their responsibility for their community by evading taxes (although lawfully). In a way perverted way these people are acting the same way as those people who don't recycle, except the non-recyclers are slipping away from their ecological obligations and the hybrid car owners are slipping away from their economical obligations for others. There's no such thing as a free luch, if you cut taxes, it's away from some other cause, like public health care.
I'm still sure, that 99.9% of people who buy a hybrid car, do so because of ecological values or public image reasons (watch South Parks Smug Alert! episode to know what I'm talking about
that's what the environmental movement is all about, feeling better about yourself.
Maybe a little bit; but the pristine environment we have in the West didn't happen by accident, you know. Go look at China and India and see what happens to the environment without environmentalists around.
I think people are more then welcome to feel better about themselves and environmentalism is just as good a way to do so as any other. But environmentalism is a luxury, that we rich westerners can afford. In time, China, India and Afirca can afford it as well. This is also why nice neighborhoods turn into slums (even in western countries), when you put poor people in there. They let their neighborhoods degrade, because when you are poor you have other things to worry about, then your environment.